[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32058-32061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15411]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI51-01-7259; FRL-5840-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
Michigan's request to grant an exemption for the Muskegon County ozone
nonattainment area from the applicable Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) transportation conformity requirements. On November
22, 1995, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
submitted to the EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request
for an exemption under section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act)
from the transportation conformity requirements for NOX for
the Muskegon ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as moderate.
The request is based on the urban airshed modeling (UAM) conducted for
the attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS)
modeling domain. The rationale for this proposed approval is set forth
in Supplementary Information; additional information is available at
the address indicated.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by July 14,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and EPA's responses are
available for inspection at the following address: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended
that you telephone Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before visiting the
Region 5 Office.)
A copy of this SIP revision is available for inspection at the
following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and
Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, (202) 260-7548.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Regulation
Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312)
353-6680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires, in order to
demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP, that transportation
plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) contribute to
emissions reductions in ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas
during the period before control strategy SIPs are approved by EPA.
This requirement is implemented in 40 CFR 51.436 through 51.440 (and
Secs. 93.122 through 93.124), which establishes the so-called ``build/
no-build test.'' This test requires a demonstration that the ``Action''
scenario (representing the implementation of the proposed
transportation plan/TIP) will result in lower motor vehicle emissions
than the ``Baseline'' scenario (representing the implementation of the
current transportation plan/TIP). In addition, the ``Action'' scenario
must result in emissions lower than 1990 levels.
The November 24, 1993, final transportation conformity rule
1 does not
[[Page 32059]]
require the build/no-build test and less-than-1990 test for
NOX as an ozone precursor in ozone nonattainment areas,
where the Administrator determines that additional reductions of
NOX would not contribute to attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Clean Air Act section
176(c)(3)(A)(iii), which is the conformity provision requiring
contributions to emission reductions before SIPs with emissions budgets
can be approved, specifically references Clean Air Act section
182(b)(1). That section requires submission of State plans that, among
other things, provide for specific annual reductions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX emissions ``as necessary''
to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date. Section
182(b)(1) further states that its requirements do not apply in the case
of NOX for those ozone nonattainment areas for which EPA
determines that additional reductions of NOX would not
contribute to ozone attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to
State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans,
Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of
the Federal Transit Act'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ozone nonattainment areas, the process for submitting waiver
requests and the criteria used to evaluate them are explained in the
December 1993 EPA document ``Guidelines for Determining the
Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides Requirements Under Section 182(f),''
and the May 27, 1994, and February 8, 1995, memoranda from John S.
Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Division Directors, titled ``Section 182(f) NOX
Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria.''
On July 13, 1994, the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin (the States) submitted to the EPA a petition for an exemption
from the requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (Act). The
States, acting through the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCo), petitioned for an exemption from the Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) and New Source Review (NSR) requirements for
major stationary sources of NOX. The petition also asked for
an exemption from the transportation and general conformity
requirements for NOX in all ozone nonattainment areas in the
Region.
On March 6, 1995, the EPA published a rulemaking proposing approval
of the NOX exemption petition for the RACT, NSR and
transportation and general conformity requirements. A number of
comments were received on the proposal. Several commenters argued that
NOX exemptions are provided for in two separate parts of the
Act, in sections 182(b)(1) and 182(f), but that the Act's
transportation conformity provisions in section 176(c)(3) explicitly
reference section 182(b)(1). In April 1995, the EPA entered into an
agreement to change the procedural mechanism through which a
NOX exemption from transportation conformity would be
granted (EDF et al. v. EPA, No. 94-1044, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.
Circuit). Instead of a petition under 182(f), transportation conformity
NOX exemptions for ozone nonattainment areas that are
subject to section 182(b)(1) now need to be submitted as a SIP revision
request. The Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas is classified as
moderate and, thus, is subject to section 182(b)(1).
The transportation conformity requirements are found at sections
176(c) (2), (3), and (4). The conformity requirements apply on an area
wide basis in all nonattainment and maintenance areas. The EPA's
transportation conformity rule was amended on August 29, 1995 (60 FR
44762) to reference section 182(b)(1) rather than 182(f) as the means
for exempting areas subject to section 182(b)(1) from the
transportation conformity NOX requirements.
The November 22, 1995, SIP revision request from Michigan, was
submitted to meet the requirements in accordance with 182(b)(1). A
public hearing on this SIP revision request was held on September 6,
1995. The EPA issued a finding of completeness on January 17, 1996.
In evaluating the 182(b) SIP revision request, the EPA considered
whether additional NOX reductions would contribute to
attainment of the standard in Muskegon County and also in the downwind
areas of the LMOS modeling domain.
The role that NOX emissions play in producing ozone at
any given place and time is complex. NOX primarily
represents a sum of two oxides of nitrogen, namely nitrogen oxide (NO)
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In the presence of sunlight,
NO2 photo-dissociates into NO2 and a single
oxygen atom. The oxygen atom reacts with molecular oxygen
(O2) to form ozone (O3). NO, on the other hand,
near its source area readily reacts with ozone to form O2
and NO. The generated NO2 is then free to photo-
dissociate and lead to ozone formation further downwind. The reaction
of NO with ozone, which locally reduces ozone concentrations, is
referred to as ozone scavenging and is one of the primary local sinks
for ozone in the lower atmosphere in and near NO source areas. Since
emissions of NOX from fuel combustion sources, whether
internal combustion engines or stationary combustion sources, such as
industrial boilers, contain significant amounts of NO, it is expected
that ozone concentrations immediately downwind of such NOX
sources will be reduced through ozone scavenging. Therefore, reducing
NOX emissions can lead to increased ozone concentrations in
the vicinity of the controlled NOX emission sources, whereas
reducing NOX emissions may lead to reduction in ozone
concentrations further downwind. Reducing NOX emissions in
VOC-limited areas (areas with low VOC emissions relative to
NOX emissions) may produce minimal ozone reductions or even
ozone increases.
As outlined in relevant EPA guidance, the use of photochemical grid
modeling is the recommended approach for testing the contribution of
NOX emission reductions to attainment of the ozone standard.
This approach simulates conditions over the modeling domain that may be
expected at the attainment deadline for three emission reduction
scenarios: (1) Substantial VOC reductions, (2) substantial
NOX reductions, and (3) both VOC and NOX
reductions. If the area wide predicted maximum one-hour ozone
concentration for each day modeled under scenario (1) is less than or
equal to those from scenarios (2) and (3) for the corresponding days,
the test is passed and the section 182(f) NOX emissions
reduction requirements would not apply.
In making this determination under section 182(b)(1) that the
NOX requirements do not apply, or may be limited in the Lake
Michigan area, the EPA has considered the national study of ozone
precursors completed pursuant to section 185B of the Act. The EPA has
based its decision on the demonstration and the supporting information
provided in the SIP revision request.
II. Summary of Submittal
On November 22, 1995, the State of Michigan submitted as a revision
to the SIP, a request for a waiver from the transportation conformity
NOX requirements. The submittal included the LMOS UAM
modeling for the attainment demonstration for 3 ozone episodes during
1991. The modeling supported the request by documenting that
NOX reductions in the LMOS modeling domain would not
contribute to attainment and, in fact, would be detrimental to the goal
of reaching attainment. The MDEQ held a public hearing on the submittal
on September 6, 1996.
[[Page 32060]]
Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A, and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart
T, the SIP revision request seeks an exemption from the transportation
conformity requirements for NOX in the Muskegon County ozone
nonattainment area. The States' have utilized the UAM to demonstrate
that reductions in NOX in the LMOS modeling domain will not
contribute to attainment of the standard. To conduct the modeling
analysis, the following steps were followed: (a) Emissions were
projected to 1996 (the deadline for implementation of the 15 percent
reasonable further progress reduction) and 2007 (the attainment
deadline for the severe nonattainment areas) from the 1990 base year,
(b) it was assumed that a 40 percent VOC emission reduction beyond that
achieved as a result of emission controls mandated by the Act would be
necessary to attain the ozone standard in the LMOS modeling domain, (c)
a 40 percent NOX emission reduction in grid B (that portion
of the LMOS modeling domain that is essentially composed of the ozone
nonattainment areas within the modeling domain) beyond the projected
emission levels was assumed for all anthropogenic NOX
emissions, (d) a 40 percent VOC emission reduction and a 40 percent
NOX reduction in grid B beyond projected emission levels
were assumed for all anthropogenic VOC and NOX emissions,
and (e) the ozone modeling results for (b), (c), and (d) were compared
considering the modeled domain-wide peak ozone concentrations and
temporal and spatial extent of modeled ozone concentrations above 120
parts per billion (ppb).
For all modeled days using 1996 and 2007 conditions, domain-wide
peak ozone concentrations for ``VOC-only'' controls were found to be
lower than or equal to those for ``NOX-only'' controls or
those for ``VOC plus NOX'' controls. In addition,
consideration of daily peak ozone isopleth maps (these maps are
included in the documentation of the section 182(b) SIP revision
request) shows that the ``VOC-only'' control scenario leads to the
smallest areas with predicted peak ozone concentrations exceeding 120
ppb.
Additional sensitivity tests were conducted for a 40 percent
NOX emission reduction that was applied only to point
sources in Grid B for episode 2 and 1996 conditions for both an assumed
NOX reduction alone and a 40 percent reduction in both VOCs
and NOX. These sensitivity tests compared to the scenarios
with across the board anthropogenic NOX reductions
demonstrated that control of ground level NOX sources (such
as transportation sources) did not contribute to attainment of the
standard and in fact increased the domain wide peak ozone
concentrations exceeding 120 ppb and the number of hours that exceeded
120 ppb. This result was more pronounced than with the point source
only NOX control.
III. Analysis of the Submittal
Review of the modeling results show a very definite directional
signal indicating that application of NOX controls in the
Muskegon County ozone nonattainment area would exacerbate peak ozone
concentrations not in the LMOS modeling domain. The LMOS modeling
domain includes Chicago, Northwest Indiana, Western Michigan and
Eastern Wisconsin. The States and LADCo have now completed the
validation process for the UAM modeling system to be used in the
demonstration of attainment for the LMOS modeling domain. Therefore,
documentation supporting the validity of the modeling results has been
submitted with the SIP revision request.
It is noted that the use of simple, area-wide emission projection
factors raises some uncertainty in the modeling results for 1996 and
2007. Some changes in modeling results may be expected if area-specific
and source category-specific projection factors are used instead of the
average factors used in these analyses. These more detailed projection
factors will be used in the final demonstration of attainment for the
LMOS domain. These changes, however, are not expected to reverse the
directional signal of the modeling done to date, which shows that
NOX reductions will not contribute to attainment in Muskegon
County ozone nonattainment and throughout the LMOS domain.
Although ozone concentrations modeled further downwind from the
urban source areas increase as a result of increased NOX
point source emissions, this is not the case with the ground level
NOX sources. LADCo and the States view the potential
increase in outflow ozone concentrations with increasing NOX
point source emissions to be marginal. More importantly, the SIP
revision request demonstrates that additional reductions in
NOX would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard
in the LMOS domain. These results are believed to be consistent with
EPA's section 185B report to Congress. Therefore, based on it's
conformance with EPA guidance, the EPA believes the State of Michigan's
demonstration is adequate, and thus is approving the transportation
conformity waiver request. It is noted by LADCo, however, that
subsequent modeling analyses may lead to an ozone attainment plan which
includes, for specified portions of the LMOS domain only, both
NOX and VOC emission controls. The modeling indicates that
these NOX emission controls will most likely be limited to
rural areas, but would not be required in the Michigan nonattainment
area and will also not likely be applied to ground level sources.
Monitoring data such as concentrations of non-methane hydrocarbons
and NOX and derived/monitored ozone production potentials of
air parcels, collected for the urban source areas during the 1991 field
study support the approval of the NOX waiver. However, the
primary basis for the approval of the NOX waiver is the
modeling results submitted in support of the waiver. The 1991 field
data by themselves may not be an adequate support for the waiver since
these data are limited in nature and do not assess the impacts of post-
1991 NOX controls on LMOS modeling domain peak ozone
concentrations.
VOC and NOX emission reductions were found to produce
different impacts spatially. In and downwind of major urban areas,
within the ozone nonattainment areas, VOC reductions were effective in
lowering peak ozone concentrations, while NOX emission
reductions resulted in increased peak ozone concentrations. Farther
downwind, within attainment areas, VOC emissions reductions became less
effective for reducing ozone concentrations, while NOX
emission reductions were effective in lowering ozone concentrations. It
must be noted, however, that the magnitude of ozone decreases farther
downwind due to NOX emission reductions was less than the
magnitude of ozone increases in the ozone nonattainment areas as a
result of the same NOX emission reductions.
Analyses of ambient data by LMOS contractors provided results which
corroborated the modeling results. These analyses identified areas of
VOC-and NOX-limited conditions (VOC-limited conditions would
imply a greater sensitivity of ozone concentrations to changes in VOC
emissions; the reverse would be true for NOX-limited
conditions) and tracked the ozone and ozone precursor concentrations in
the urban plumes as they moved downwind. The analyses indicated VOC-
limited conditions in the Chicago/Northwest Indiana and Milwaukee areas
and NOX-limited conditions further downwind. These results
imply that VOC controls in the Chicago/Northwest Indiana, Milwaukee,
and Western Michigan areas would be
[[Page 32061]]
more effective at reducing peak ozone concentrations within the Lake
Michigan ozone nonattainment areas.
The consistency between the modeling results and the ambient data
analysis results for all episodes with joint data supports the view
that the UAM modeling system developed in the LMOS may be used to
investigate the relative merits of VOC versus NOX emission
controls. The UAM-V results for all modeled episodes point to the
benefits of VOC controls versus NOX controls in reducing the
modeled domain peak ozone concentrations.
For a more detailed analysis of the modeling analysis results,
please see the August 22, 1994 ``Technical Review of a Four State
Request for a Section 182(f) Exemption from Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New
Source Review (NSR) Requirements'' memorandum contained in the docket
for this action.
The EPA believes LADCo's UAM application has adequately met the
requirement to demonstrate that NOX controls within the
Muskegon County ozone nonattainment area and throughout the LMOS domain
will not contribute, but instead will interfere with attainment of the
ozone standard.
IV. EPA Action
The EPA is proposing approval of the transportation conformity
NOX waiver SIP revision for the State of Michigan. In light
of the modeling completed thus far and considering the importance of
the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) process and attainment plan
modeling efforts, EPA proposes to approve this NOX waiver on
a contingent basis. When the results of OTAG technical work are
available, EPA intends to require appropriate States to submit SIP
measures to ensure emissions reductions of ozone precursors needed to
prevent significant transport of ozone. The EPA will evaluate the OTAG
technical work, along with EPA's emissions reduction requirements, to
determine whether the NOX waiver should be continued,
altered, or removed.
The EPA also reserves the right to require NOX emission
controls for transportation sources under section 110(a)(2)(D) of the
Act if future ozone modeling demonstrates that such controls are needed
to achieve the ozone standard in downwind areas.
V. Miscellaneous
A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
B. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
This approval does not impose any requirements on small entities.
Therefore, I certify that this action does not have a significant
economic impact on any small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval proposed does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector.
This Federal document does not imposes any Federal requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, result from this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Oxides of Nitrogen, Transportation
conformity, Transportation-air quality planning, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: May 30, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-15411 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
